Re: Updated registration

Thanks for the edits, Ted.

I still think it might be helpful to have an explicit “Name” and
“Affiliation” field separate from the “Bio”, so that we don't have to infer
or follow-up for people who left that out.  Otherwise, I think your wording
covers the necessary warnings for making the info public.

For talk and hack-session proposals, the CFP currently suggests that the
actual content of the proposal be sent by email. We can change it to have
them included in the registration form, of course, but then we want to
emphasize that people can submit the basic details of their registration
and modify it later. (Which I think you can do on WBS.)

Oh, and one last thing (this was my slip up), two meetings ago, we had a
discussion about changing the wording to “workshop series”, instead of
workshop. I put those edits in the website this weekend, but didn't think
about them when I emailed last week!

~Amelia

On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 12:34, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org> wrote:

> Apologies Amelia for not responding earlier, focused elsewhere.
>
> Comments inline.
>
> On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 16:04 +0100, Gobe Hobona wrote:
> > I echo Amelia’s comments.
> >
> > Gobe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 6 Apr 2020, at 23:07, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <
> > > amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for these updates, Ted.
> > >
> > > I'd made some comments on the original form which got lost in the
> > > shuffle of changing plans. Copying over those that are still
> > > relevant:
> > > The title we're using on the website is "W3C/OGC Joint Workshop on
> > > Maps for the Web", we should use the same wording here.
>
> Corrected
>
> > > It currently says “Anybody with a W3C account can answer this
> > > form”. Is there a way to support answers without an account? If
> > > not, we should add info about account creation to the CFP.
>
> Set it allow those without W3C accounts as was my intent but apparently
> missed the box.
>
> > > For bio: if we're not going to have explicit fields for name &
> > > affiliation, there should be a statement that these will be taken
> > > from the W3C account (in case someone needs to update that info).
>
> Attendees and their affiliations are part of the public proceedings.
>
> Often we have those with complicated affiliations for workshop, eg
> employed by so and so but representing 'university research group,
> trade association, etc.' easier handled by free form. This is basically
> their application to attend.
>
> How about this clarification:
>
> <p>Those who are presenters may have portions of their bios published
> on the agenda page. We appreciate the bio and background from all
> interested in attending as we may reach out for prospective presenters
> and for selecting invitees from candidate applications. All attendees'
> names and their affiliations will be part of the public record.</p>
>
> Feel free to suggest alternate text.
>
> > > Might also want to add a checkbox for “Can we publish your name,
> > > affiliation, and bio on the workshop website?” (The CFP currently
> > > says that we may do this for people who submit a talk/session, but
> > > it helps to be explicit.)
>
> We publish attendees' names and affiliations as part of meeting
> proceedings except under extreme situations which will be handled on
> case basis.
>
> > > In addition to the free-form questions about goals of
> > > participation, it would be helpful to have a set of checkboxes for
> > > whether the registrant is planning to submit a talk proposal, hack
> > > or breakout session proposal, or written position statement. (That
> > > way, we know who to follow up with!) There could be a link back to
> > > the CFP web page for information about how to make those
> > > submissions.
>
> Done, with input fields where appropriate.
>
> > > It might also be helpful to ask about preferred times for
> > > live/synchronous events, to get an idea of scheduling
> > > requirements.  But I'm not sure how best to ask it — it's not
> > > enough to just ask time zones, some people prefer later or earlier
> > > hours than others in the same zone!  WBS has a “select a meeting
> > > time” question type, but it doesn't seem to have any smarts built
> > > in for translating time zones.
>
> WBS interface is a bit limited for this. We can have preferred list of
> times in GMT which will confuse some with respect to their local times.
> We can use something like Doodle and survey times separately.
>
> > > ~Amelia
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 13:21, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org> wrote:
> > > > I updated the registration to clarify it is now an online
> > > > workshop
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what a reasonable remote limitation is, figure 80 may be
> > > > more
> > > > manageable if we want to moderate and unmute people. It is
> > > > somewhat an
> > > > arbitrary number and what we had earlier for physical.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/maps2020/
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
> > > > W3C Automotive Lead
> > > > https://www.w3.org/auto
> > > >
> >
> >
> > Keep up with all the OGC news by signing up to our quarterly
> > newsletter at http://newsletter.opengeospatial.org
> >
> > Interested in attending the next OGC Technical and Planning Committee
> > Meeting? Find out more at http://www.ogcmeet.org
> --
> Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
> W3C Automotive Lead
> https://www.w3.org/auto
>
>